Point of Law: Except for withholding of annual increments till lapse of one year after qualification of typing test by petitioner, respondents had no right to reduce or re-fix his pay, as has been done by way of impugned order.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“i). That the impugned office order dated 27.11.2017 contained in Annexure A-5 whereby the pay of the applicant has been refixed to his detriment and further ordered the recovery may be quashed and set aside.

ii) That the respondents may further be directed to grant pay band i.e. 10300+34500+3200 Grade Pay w.e.f. 15.9.2013.

iii) That the respondents may be further directed to grant the applicant actual consequential financial benefits on annual increments from date of promotion i.e. 15.9.2011 in place of notional benefits.

iv) That the order of recovery issued by respondent No.3 be quashed and set aside”

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in the year 1997. He was converted into whole time contingent worker in June, 2004. The services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 15.9.2005 as Class-IV. During his service as Class-IV, petitioner improved his qualification and passed 10+2 examination, conducted by H.P. Board of School Education.

3. On the recommendations of DPC, petitioner was promoted to the post of Clerk vide office order dated 15.9.2011 in the pay scale of Rs. 5910-20200+1900 Grade Pay. The promotion order of the petitioner was subject to following condition:

“4. Officials so promoted as clerks will qualify the typing test with a minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English typewriting or 25 words per minute in hindi typewriting within probation period and during the period, if the candidates fail to qualify the typing test within the prescribed period, their probation will be extended. During this period the incumbents will get one more chance. If the candidates still failed to qualify the typing test in the extended period they will be reverted from clerk to class-IV posts”.

4. The pay of the petitioner was fixed in the Pay Band of Rs. 5910-20200+1900 Grade Pay vide office order dated 17.1.2012.

5. The State Government vide notification dated 27.9.2012 amended the H.P. Civil Services (Category/Post wise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012 by adding certain categories/posts in the schedule appended to the rules and the category of Clerks was also included therein for entitlement of Pay Band of Rs. 10300-34800+ Grade Pay of Rs. 3200. Such Pay Band and Grade Pay, however, was made available only to those incumbents, who had completed two years of regular service. Petitioner completed two years of regular service as Clerk on 15.9.2013 and thus became entitled to Pay Band of Rs. 10300-34800+ Grade Pay of Rs. 3200 w.e.f. 15.9.2013.

6. Petitioner qualified the typing test on 30.4.2015 and became entitled to the annual increment w.e.f. 30.4.2016 as per terms and conditions of his promotion order, as noticed above. The petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant by way of placement vide office order dated 18.8.2017 and his pay was fixed in the Pay Band of Rs. 11560-15160+ Rs. 3600 as Grade Pay.

7. Respondent No.2 vide office order dated 27.11.2017 re-fixed the pay of petitioner in the Pay Band of Rs. 5910-20200 + Grade pay of Rs. 1900 right from the date he was promoted as Clerk. In pursuance to said office order, the pay of petitioner as Junior Assistant as of 1.9.2017 was fixed at Rs. 14320 (10720 + Grade Pay of Rs. 3600). The over payment, if any, found to have been made to the petitioner was also ordered to be recovered.

8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid action of respondents, petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 356 of 2018, which on abolition of the Tribunal came to be transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOA No. 3885 of 2020 i.e. the instant petition.

9. The grievance of the petitioner is that his pay has been wrongly revised and re-fixed to his detriment. Consequently, the order to recover the overpaid amount from the petitioner has also been alleged to be wr